Yes, I agree with you about the politics - his political views are diametrically opposed to my own! - and in some of his books the "kinky sex" scenes are just ghastly (the "Ghost" series I wouldn't touch with the proverbial barge-pole), but I don't recall there being any such scenes in "Road to Damascus". He's such a good writer that I can forgive him his political views, even though I regard them as being utterly wrong.

I enjoyed Ghost, and the succeeding books in the series.

I don't consider the viewpoint xenophobic, though I can see where others might. I've met Ringo, and "xenophobic" is too simple a reading of where he's coming from. The BDSM I basically shrugged about. I know some people who are into that lifestyle, and Ringo has it more or less correct for a segment of that population. It just doesn't happen to be my kink.

Who was he writing it for? Himself. His publisher decided to take a flyer on it, and enough other folks liked it that it became a popular series.

I wouldn't call it SF (though you might stretch and call it Alternate History). It's action adventure thriller, with lots of combat and lots of sex. There's a market for both.

I was amused when I heard that Ringo's mother had written him out of her will because she recommended her son's book to patrons at her beauty salon, quite unaware of what sort of book it was, and was unpleasantly surprised when they told her.

(And if you look, I think you'll find most BDSM fiction published these days is written by female authors for a female audience, and tends to be shelved in the Romance section. In the genre, consider the popularity of Jacqueline Carey's "Kushiel" series. Her protagonist is a masochist, and Carey has gotten complaints from female readers that she doesn't go far enough, and tends to have the action take place behind closed doors and not explicitly described. The series is popular enough that Tor has an editor specifically looking for more books like that.)
______Dennis

(And if you look, I think you'll find most BDSM fiction published these days is written by female authors for a female audience, and tends to be shelved in the Romance section. In the genre, consider the popularity of Jacqueline Carey's "Kushiel" series. Her protagonist is a masochist, and Carey has gotten complaints from female readers that she doesn't go far enough, and tends to have the action take place behind closed doors and not explicitly described. The series is popular enough that Tor has an editor specifically looking for more books like that.)

I couldn't finish Kushiel's Dart, and it wasn't really the BDSM stuff that was offputting so much as the fact that the entire universe conspired to beat up on poor Phèdre. My emotional reaction was much like when I read Lord Foul's Bane. I just couldn't like the main character.

I couldn't finish Kushiel's Dart, and it wasn't really the BDSM stuff that was offputting so much as the fact that the entire universe conspired to beat up on poor Phèdre. My emotional reaction was much like when I read Lord Foul's Bane. I just couldn't like the main character.

I understand the problem. I read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant way back, and liked it, I think, because it wasn't Yet Another Tolkien Clone. I didn't find Covenant as annoying as many have, but I didn't find the second series based on him as appealing as the first, and I've felt no urge to re-read either.

In general, I don't have a problem with violence, politics, or sex in books per se. I have a problem when any of them are gratuitous, or when the book becomes a forum to push a viewpoint. (Later H. G. Wells titles tended to suffer from this, as his Fabian Socialist leanings took front and center.)

The world in which things are set can also present issues. For example, I enjoy David Drake's RCN series featuring Daniel Leary and Signals Officer Adele Mundy, but I don't much like the Republic of Cinnabar. The capital, Xenos, is a snake-pit of feuding houses, and it's just as well for Daniel he spends most of his time elsewhere. Daniel is a good guy, but the cause he fights for is "good" only relative to the Alliance of Free Stars, and not a place I'd want to live.

Sympathetic main characters are an interesting problem. I don't have to like the main characters to enjoy the books, but I do have to understand them. For instance, I've read books where the villains are sympathetic: decent, honorable folks, doing their duty for a cause they believe in, who just happen to be working for the wrong side.

And believable villains are a whole other issue. I've read otherwise enjoyable works that failed because I couldn't believe the villains. They were crudely drawn, with no indication of what formed and motivated them. I always liked Robert A. Heinlein's dictum "No man is a villain in his own eyes". Keep that in mind, and make me understand what the villain wants and why, and how they came to be that way, and you'll have a lot better chance of holding my interest.

(Speaking of which, how many fantasy titles, starting with Tolkien, have a Great Enemy who is essentially a spoiled deity throwing a cosmic tantrum because he can't have his way? I love Tolkien with a passion, but Melkor/Morgoth's motives are envy and spite because he can't make his own music and do his own creation.)
______Dennis

I couldn't finish Kushiel's Dart, and it wasn't really the BDSM stuff that was offputting so much as the fact that the entire universe conspired to beat up on poor Phèdre. My emotional reaction was much like when I read Lord Foul's Bane. I just couldn't like the main character.

New thread? Books with protagonists you couldn't like? S. M. Stirling's "The Change" novels. I hated them for so many very good reasons, but the main one was that I found each of the main characters intensely unlikeable. The only thing that kept me turning the pages was the faint hope that Juniper or Havel would meet a gruesome death on the next page. Spoiler: at least Stirling killed Havel. I cheered. Those books went immediately into the "Used Book Delivery Bin". I recall physically frisbee'ing the last one into the box with a nice thunk and a loud "so mote it be!"

The "Island in the Stream of Time" series was better, somewhat. Still childish/adolescent but with characters that were at least likable.

I started reading Stirling with a book about an alternate universe California, not part of either/any series, and I liked it, and hoped the other books he'd written would be as good. They weren't.

I started reading Stirling with a book about an alternate universe California, not part of either/any series, and I liked it, and hoped the other books he'd written would be as good. They weren't.

I know Steve slightly, and he's a nice enough chap, but I understand your point about unsympathetic characters.

I recently finished a batch of collaborations Stirling did with David Drake. I enjoyed them (though with some technical reservations), and didn't find the protagonists unlikeable, but I suspect that was Drake's doing rather than Stirling's.
______Dennis

I don't consider the viewpoint xenophobic, though I can see where others might. I've met Ringo, and "xenophobic" is too simple a reading of where he's coming from.

Where is he "coming from"? The way the books came across to me - and perhaps this is an American/British cultural difference - is as playing unashamedly on the "the Islamic world is out to destroy us" paranoia which a certain segment of the US population seems to be afflicted by. The UK is an extremely "multi-cultural society" and I have many friends who are Muslims. I would be deeply embarrased to have any of them read these books.

It's one thing to have nasty aliens in SF books (I have no issues with his "Posleen" books, and very much enjoyed them). I do have major issues when someone appears to be deliberately setting out to "demonize" all followers of a major world religion, and to cause them gross offence, which, to my mind, is what "Ghost" and its sequels do.

Where is he "coming from"? The way the books came across to me - and perhaps this is an American/British cultural difference - is as playing unashamedly on the "the Islamic world is out to destroy us" paranoia which a certain segment of the US population seems to be afflicted by. The UK is an extremely "multi-cultural society" and I have many friends who are Muslims. I would be deeply embarrased to have any of them read these books.

It's one thing to have nasty aliens in SF books (I have no issues with his "Posleen" books, and very much enjoyed them). I do have major issues when someone appears to be deliberately setting out to "demonize" all followers of a major world religion, and to cause them gross offence, which, to my mind, is what "Ghost" and its sequels do.

Sorry, but I just find them horribly offensive books.

First, this series is _supposed_ to be over the top. Mr. Ringo has said repeatedly that the Ghost series is not in any way connected with reality. If needed for the story, he'd have the sun come up in the West.

Second, I want to understand where you are coming from. In your opinion, how much would the xenophobia have to be toned down before there is an element of truth?

P.S. There is a book I want you to read, Harry. It was in the April Webscriptions bundle. "Caliphate" by Tom Kratman

First, this series is _supposed_ to be over the top. Mr. Ringo has said repeatedly that the Ghost series is not in any way connected with reality. If needed for the story, he'd have the sun come up in the West.

Yes, I'm well aware of what he claims to be the reasons for writing it; I'm afraid that I still find them to be quite horrid books. I honestly wonder if Mr. Ringo is aware of how astonishingly offensive he is being in these books - that's why I wonder if it is a "cultural" thing and they come across as more "acceptable" to American readers.

Quote:

Second, I want to understand where you are coming from. In your opinion, how much would the xenophobia have to be toned down before there is an element of truth?

I don't believe that making generalisations about nationalities or religions can ever be justified. Individuals are "terrorists"; nations / religions are not.

Quote:

P.S. There is a book I want you to read, Harry. It was in the April Webscriptions bundle. "Caliphate" by Tom Kratman

I have it; haven't yet read it. I'll let you know what I think of it when I do.

I know I'm going to get pummelled for this, but hear me out. I loved the first five or six books of the Gor series by John Norman. The intensity of the world that was created was hypnotising. The characters were bold and well drawn. I became hooked.

Then, he veered off into a BDSM rant that has been going on for 20 books, while throwing in a few bones every now and again to further the plot arch that morons like myself were hooked on. The books were nearly unreadable becasue of all the wordy, uninteresting, gynophobic rants.

So, I have been reading the latest releases from FictionWise, because I want to find out what happened. They are fast reads, because whenever I see a paragraph that takes up the whole page (or three) I just thumb through until I get to the story again. I skip any chapter that is titled, "What occurred..."

The characters ahve become quite a bit more unidimensional, and the world is becoming quite a bit less interesting. I may not be able to finish the series, which saddens me a great deal.

I don't believe that making generalisations about nationalities or religions can ever be justified. Individuals are "terrorists"; nations / religions are not.

Now, this is interesting. I didn't want to list particular issues or viewpoints because (while I am aware of them) I do not beleive in them strong enough that I want to defend them.

This is something we can discuss, though. It sounds like you disagree with making judgments at all, not just the ones made by this author. I disagree, Harry. I think it's okay make judgments about other cultures.

I'm not going to argue about the number, but there is a sizable minority of people in the USA who don't share this belief of yours.

The US is big. Even people born in the US don't realize how big. To make a generalization such as "that must be a US viewpoint" is to make a BIG generalization. When I travel outside of the US, I encounter two viewpoints which I will call "NYC" and "LA". That's how most of the world tends to view Americans. Even many Americans do that, because that's also what the media does. The US is not NYC and LA, though. It's Nebraska, and Arizona, and Maine, and Oregon and Kansas, and Texas. Radically differing viewpoints. Heck, Texas is Dallas, and Houston, and Austin, and El Paso... each having radically different "viewpoints".

So I'm always suspicious when someone speaks about a "typically American" outlook. Which America?

That's why I said, Taylor, that I wondered if there might be a difference between the cultural perspective of British and American readers - I don't know if there is, or if there isn't. I'm certainly not making "generalisations" - that is, after all, precisely what I'm criticising Mr. Ringo for, so it would a little hypocritical of me to engage in such a practice myself .